If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Two examples why GPL brings more freedom into world than BSD

01-10-2014, 06:33 PM

I was searching for an IPTV box today, and the research itself has given me some infos, I'd like to share with who ever finds it relevant.

We know Netflix and PS4 use BSD to broadcast IPTV/access internet, yet BSD itself can't use Netflix or PS4 content.
This means, with any BSD-based OS it is impossible to get PS4 content or watch Netflix correspondingly.

The real-world example why GPL brings more real freedom into the world than BSD license in regard to consoles is obviously - SteamOS & Steambox - with ability to install Steam on Linux and access Steam content on "normal" Linux machine, as well as complete separation of software. Thus whole ecosystem can profit from Valve and Valve can profit from Linux. Win-win.

Now the Netflix issue is still open. But today in a search of IPTV, I discovered that most IPTV providers of at least russian TV use Linux-based boxes. Aaand -..

Linux is supported standalone. That means, you can take "normal" Linux box, install their program and watch IPTV. Or you can buy their Linux-based box and watch the same IPTV. Choice is yours. Funny enough, BSD is not supported by them. This is a direct link to the FAQ of one of the providers via g translate.

Which means, I can directly purchase a subscription ignoring purchase of extra-unnecessary box, then get software and enjoy IPTV on any Linux box I have.I save the unnecessary equipment (++ to flexibility and my wallet) and they purchase a happy customer. And the DRM is not spread everywhere. Win-Win.

Would it be done with BSD ... its unlikely to happen, as they won't be obligated at all, .. and BSD market share is.. I think I can predict what bosses would say to that, as they tend to cut costs.

That leads me into the theory that other IPTV providers, like Sky (previously Premier) use BSD on their boxes. That would explain why there is simply no Sky client for BSD-OS, or in fact any other OS.

So is it good to deny right to close software code as a necessity to have right to freedom of it? I think it really proves it, in a real world.

Comment

I was searching for an IPTV box today, and the research itself has given me some infos, I'd like to share with who ever finds it relevant.

We know Netflix and PS4 use BSD to broadcast IPTV/access internet, yet BSD itself can't use Netflix or PS4 content.
This means, with any BSD-based OS it is impossible to get PS4 content or watch Netflix correspondingly.

The real-world example why GPL brings more real freedom into the world than BSD license in regard to consoles is obviously - SteamOS & Steambox - with ability to install Steam on Linux and access Steam content on "normal" Linux machine, as well as complete separation of software. Thus whole ecosystem can profit from Valve and Valve can profit from Linux. Win-win.

Now the Netflix issue is still open. But today in a search of IPTV, I discovered that most IPTV providers of at least russian TV use Linux-based boxes. Aaand -..

Linux is supported standalone. That means, you can take "normal" Linux box, install their program and watch IPTV. Or you can buy their Linux-based box and watch the same IPTV. Choice is yours. Funny enough, BSD is not supported by them. This is a direct link to the FAQ of one of the providers via g translate.

Which means, I can directly purchase a subscription ignoring purchase of extra-unnecessary box, then get software and enjoy IPTV on any Linux box I have.I save the unnecessary equipment (++ to flexibility and my wallet) and they purchase a happy customer. And the DRM is not spread everywhere. Win-Win.

Would it be done with BSD ... its unlikely to happen, as they won't be obligated at all, .. and BSD market share is.. I think I can predict what bosses would say to that, as they tend to cut costs.

That leads me into the theory that other IPTV providers, like Sky (previously Premier) use BSD on their boxes. That would explain why there is simply no Sky client for BSD-OS, or in fact any other OS.

So is it good to deny right to close software code as a necessity to have right to freedom of it? I think it really proves it, in a real world.

If the PS4 had used Linux, or Netflix, you may still be unable to access the content. I'm not sure why you're conflating two entirely different issues. Generally IPTV clients are implemented as userland programs, not in the kernel, so your GPL does not apply. SteamOS is totally different. By the way, Valve's Steam is still a walled garden and mostly proprietary so I'm not sure what you're getting at.

beetreetime, I refuse to ingratiate that blog with any page-views. I have already looked at it and it is filled with racism, homophobia, and stupidity. It is a mess and full of blatant lies that scarcely need debunking for their immediately visible absurdity.

Comment

I agree that Steam on Linux is a good example how the commercial BSD culture of keeping novel things to oneself (temporarily or indefinitely) differs from the Linux culture of making them available to the whole community more or less immediately.

However, I don't think that the situation would be better if BSD was also under a copyleft license. The PS4 is a closed system which is a choice by Sony, only afterwards they chose BSD. Else they would have simply chosen a different OS. An example where this happened is busybox, where Sony supports the development of the BSD licensed busybox replacement toybox instead.

Comment

If the PS4 had used Linux, or Netflix, you may still be unable to access the content. I'm not sure why you're conflating two entirely different issues. Generally IPTV clients are implemented as userland programs, not in the kernel, so your GPL does not apply. SteamOS is totally different. By the way, Valve's Steam is still a walled garden and mostly proprietary so I'm not sure what you're getting at.

beetreetime, I refuse to ingratiate that blog with any page-views. I have already looked at it and it is filled with racism, homophobia, and stupidity. It is a mess and full of blatant lies that scarcely need debunking for their immediately visible absurdity.

As Steam is not obligating developers to do "exclusive releases" and DRM within Steam is optional - it is not walled garden.
If PS4 or Netflix would have used Linux kernel, then the probability for them to release native clients would be substantially higher, simply because GPL makes taking parts and pluging into proprietary codebase unfavorable (yet not "impossible"), suggesting extending and contribution instead.

If Valve would take BSD for SteamOS, then its nearly guaranteed that the console would be proprietary, and BSD client? Really?

Furthermore, regarding "generally" thing - please provide me any info of an IPTV company that uses BSD and makes its client run on BSD.
Until then, you posted nonsense approximation, sorry.

Comment

I agree that Steam on Linux is a good example how the commercial BSD culture of keeping novel things to oneself (temporarily or indefinitely) differs from the Linux culture of making them available to the whole community more or less immediately.

However, I don't think that the situation would be better if BSD was also under a copyleft license. The PS4 is a closed system which is a choice by Sony, only afterwards they chose BSD. Else they would have simply chosen a different OS. An example where this happened is busybox, where Sony supports the development of the BSD licensed busybox replacement toybox instead.

I agree to what you wrote.

Funny enough busybox are GPL3 haters (yes, they are), because they thought (or were sure) GPL3 is "restricting" them the contacts to proprietary embedded system builders.
These proprietary builders will now reimplement whole busybox as a BSD clone, completely leaving them no choice. Their project will be GPL3 incompatible, incompatible with more opensource licenses than GPL3 and, at same time, more restricting than BSD.

Notably Linus refused to switch to GPL3 not due to the newer conditions, but due to impossibility of getting an allowance from all the kernel contributors.

Comment

As Steam is not obligating developers to do "exclusive releases" and DRM within Steam is optional - it is not walled garden.
If PS4 or Netflix would have used Linux kernel, then the probability for them to release native clients would be substantially higher, simply because GPL makes taking parts and pluging into proprietary codebase unfavorable (yet not "impossible"), suggesting extending and contribution instead.

If Valve would take BSD for SteamOS, then its nearly guaranteed that the console would be proprietary, and BSD client? Really?

Furthermore, regarding "generally" thing - please provide me any info of an IPTV company that uses BSD and makes its client run on BSD.
Until then, you posted nonsense approximation, sorry.

That's because they can't. I'm sure Valve would love to if they could. They're pretty much the only name in digital distribution these days. As for the PS4 I have access to a PS4 devkit which includes source code to the system. There appears to be very little in-kernel modification; the kernel is merely used to host the PS4's libraries and frontend. With Linux you would have the exact same issue. If you didn't, the GPL would be less popular, because then releasing userland applications would be a legal minefield that no one in their right mind would dare challenge.

And if Valve took BSD for SteamOS, there's no guarantee it'd be proprietry. Besides, it seems to me Valve hasn't done very much with Linux itself bar put Steam Client on top of it. What do you gain from that? No patches.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with regards to IPTV and BSD. I was talking about the fact that IPTV clients are not kernel-land applications. Therefore they are NOT covered by the GPL.

Comment

That's because they can't. I'm sure Valve would love to if they could. They're pretty much the only name in digital distribution these days. As for the PS4 I have access to a PS4 devkit which includes source code to the system. There appears to be very little in-kernel modification; the kernel is merely used to host the PS4's libraries and frontend. With Linux you would have the exact same issue. If you didn't, the GPL would be less popular, because then releasing userland applications would be a legal minefield that no one in their right mind would dare challenge.

.. unless the userspace is completely BSD or GPL. Like what most Linux/BSD users use.
Its a problem of restrictive licenses. One restricts freedom, other restricts denial of freedom and opensource just gifts code yet keeps silent on any other aspect.
If the kernel component is licensed with a restricting license of different polarity than inside userspace, then there are clear interfaces defined.
As of mines, minefields are dangerous only for those, who IFF as enemies
Actually, in real world, proprietaries are much much more often seen setting and falling for minefields along themselves than for copyleft.

And if Valve took BSD for SteamOS, there's no guarantee it'd be proprietry. Besides, it seems to me Valve hasn't done very much with Linux itself bar put Steam Client on top of it. What do you gain from that? No patches.

The chances Valve would release standalone client if it used BSD as base are equal to those of PS4 using Linux for their proprietary stack.
Valve does not need patching kernel, the gain was the popularity, games and faster/better graphical drivers.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with regards to IPTV and BSD. I was talking about the fact that IPTV clients are not kernel-land applications. Therefore they are NOT covered by the GPL.

Ofc they are not in kernel space, at least for Linux-based IPTV recievers. Regardless if standalone or inside set top boxes.
Because for BSD-hosted IPTV recievers I found none native client. What I get with regards to IPTV and BSD is a mess that runs inside a sealed blackbox.

So if you know any IPTV client that works on vanilla BSD system, I would be interested to know. I found none - BSD is everywhere, but no profit (to choice, not just to wallet).

Comment

If a company chose (choice being key here!) an operating system based on the permissiveness of its license, they were NEVER going to pick ANY copyleft system in the first place. If BSD didn't exist, they would have bought something else. All that extra appended complaining about media player compatibility is completely irrelevant.

You want a company that supports Linux, right? Well, find an IPTV vendor that supports Linux and stop whining about licenses. The company decides on its product, not the license (unless they're stupid and don't read the license).

Nothing to see here ... same old rubbish about licenses having magical powers.

If a company chose (choice being key here!) an operating system based on the permissiveness of its license, they were NEVER going to pick ANY copyleft system in the first place. If BSD didn't exist, they would have bought something else. All that extra appended complaining about media player compatibility is completely irrelevant.

You want a company that supports Linux, right? Well, find an IPTV vendor that supports Linux and stop whining about licenses. The company decides on its product, not the license (unless they're stupid and don't read the license).

Nothing to see here ... same old rubbish about licenses having magical powers.

No, I don't want a company that supports Linux.
I want a company that supports multiple platforms, preferably open ones too. That does not impose restrictions that have nothing to do with what they are paid for.

I see you guys like to quickly jump of the topic into abstract rubbish. When represented with real world events, you for the lack of back up, start religion-, magic-, unluck- talk, anything except real world data.

If you believe in magic, then start your own topic - like SteamOS didn't use BSD, because its less magical. Gabe himself has stated numerous times that he wanted more freedom to users and less vendor lock-ins. Is BSD providing anything for freedom of users or against vendor lock-in?

Sure, they'd start some proprietary exchange license, but what does this have to do with topic? Nothing.